(07-04-2019 09:44 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-04-2019 09:15 AM)Mav Wrote:  

(07-04-2019 07:16 AM)esayem Wrote:  Replacing one outlier with another on the other side of the country would be exactly why this conference has had an identity problem. I don’t see either parties interested.

Oh no, the conference has an identity, a bunch of P5 strivers trying to use one another as stepping stones so their name gets called during the next round of realignment. Reality's starting to set in that they're not getting called up, so they're trying to position themselves as a conference of programs better than the other G5s. The "P6" bluster should be proof of that.

There is an identity, it's just cynical and doesn't offer the cohesion that the MAC's does.

That's about as well as it can be said.

He's not wrong---but as I said before, the more regional CUSA 1.0. CUSA 2.0, and CUSA 3.0 models have all failed---each being less successful than its predecessor. The AAC, using its somewhat unorthodox "best of the rest" frankenstein conference model has actually managed to find a degree of success that eluded all the previous failed incarnations of CUSA. An ugly piece of cardboard duct taped into the frame keeps the cold out better than a broken window. Just because it isnt elegant doesn't mean it doesnt work.